ppt - The motivational role of self-efficacy in L2 learning

(1)

The motivational role of

self-efficacy in L2 learning

(2)

Background of the study

• L2 learning as a taxing and complex undertaking

• Students lack confidence in their English and expectation of success

(Lamb, 2002).

• “tude ts’ oti atio a ed due to their tea hers’ perso ality a d

teaching methods (Lamb, 2007).

• Differences in learning outcomes.

• Motivational processes could be a key determinant of the difference

(Clement, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1994).

(3)

Self-efficacy?

• P

eople’s o i tio of their a ility to o plete a desig ated

task (Bandura, 1986).

• An important human agency mechanisms and affects

people’s eha iours Ba dura, 977,

1993; Linnenbrink &

Pintrich, 2003 ).

• Academic success

depe ds ot o ly lear ers’

skill and

knowledge but also their beliefs in their ability (Bandura,

1993; Bouffard-Bouchard, 2001; Pajares, 2002).

(4)

Self-efficacy?

• A significant predictor of achievement across subjects (Wang, Shannon, &

Ross, 2013; Wilson & Narayan, 2014; Woodrow, 2011 ).

• Self-efficacious learners are likely to be more self-regulated (Anam &

Stracke, 2016; Shang, 2010; Wong, 2005).

• Self-efficacy has received only little attention in L2 research (Kim, Wang,

Ahn, & Bong, 2015; Woodrow, 2011)

• The majority of self-efficacy research has been questionnaire-based (Usher,

2009).

• Most of the few L2 studies (e.g. Heidari, Izadi, & Ahmadian, 2012;

Magogwe & Oliver, 2007; Su & Duo, 2012; Yang, 1999) used

pseudo-self-efficacy scales.

(5)

Research question

What are the motivational and cognitive behaviours of students with

different level of self-efficacy?

(6)

Methods

• 12 six graders in urban primary schools, selected on the basis of their

self-efficacy scores

• Semi-structured interview

• Thematic analysis with two steps: within-case and cross-case (Miles &

Huberman, 1994)

(7)

Results and discussion

• Cognitive and behavioural engagement

(8)

Cognitive and behavioral engagements

Engagements High

Low

Strategy use

- Rehearsal strategies

- Learning with/from others

- Greater range of learning

resources

- Error-monitoring

- Structuring physical

environment for learning

- Organizing time for task

completion/learning

- Seeking opportunities for

practice in and out of

classroom

- Rehearsal strategies

- Learning with/from others

- Less varied resources

- Error monitoring

- Structuring physical

environment for learning

-

(9)

• High self-efficacy students tend to employ deep strategies while their

low self-efficacy peers tended to resort to surface strategies

(Mizumoto, 2012, 2013; Prat-Sala & Redford, 2010).

• The evidence lends support to

Ba dura’s 99

theoretical claim that

self-

effi a y affe ts stude ts’ self

-regulatory abilities or learning

(10)

Attentiveness in language learning

Self-efficacious students were more attentive, like engagement in

classroom interaction, while some low self-efficacy students frequently

reported occasional off-task activities.

e.g.

ya itu pak akan mendengarkan pertanyaan bu guru untuk temanku

…

kalau dia tidak bisa aku angkat tangan

Ari, tur s

281 and 283).

(11)

Motivational engagements

1. Effort in L2 learning

- frequency of learning English

- preparing assignments/finishing homework

- varied learning activities in and out of classroom

…

kadang saya cerita sama pembantu di rumah cerita di majalah

…

juga

sering latihan

…

ngomong bahasa Inggris sama teman

…

seperti

He dra…

itu yang duduk di depan kelas tadi

…

bahasa Inggrisnya juga

bagus

…

saya sering ngomong Inggris sama dia

…

itu saya sering minta

orang tua buat pertanyaan dan saya jawab (Edi, turns 210 and 212)

(12)

Motivational engagement (cont.)

2. Persistence in the face of difficult tasks

e.g.

1. Less efficacious learners tended to easily give up, leave questions

unanswered, or answer questions recklessly.

2. Most of less efficacious learners preferred easy tasks, while

efficacious learners preferred difficult and challenging ones.

3. Interest in L2 learning

Unlike their counterparts, most low group students seemed to fall short

of interest in learning English.

(13)

• Differences in motivational behaviours are likely to be affected by

self-efficacy and in turn affect achievement (Bandura, 1977;

Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).

• This e ide e supports Ba dura’s 99 lai that people ho

perceive themselves capable of doing tasks will be more engrossed

and interested in their activities.

(14)

Motivational engagements (cont.)

4. Attributions of success and failure

Effort was the attributional factor of achievements for high and low

self-efficacy learners.

This finding in part does not support past research that students with high

self-efficacy tend to ascribe their achievement to internal or controllable

factors, such as effort and ability, while their low self-efficacy counterparts to

external and uncontrollable factors, such as task difficulty or environmental

support (Graham, 2006; Hsieh & Kang, 2010).

Effort

attri utio s e dorsed y the stude ts are healthy attri utio s Hsieh

(15)

Pedagogical implications

• Teacher educators might need to equip the teachers with the

know-ho of raisi g a d sustai i g their stude ts’ self

-efficacy.

• Teachers could train their students in evaluating their ability to cope

with specific tasks accurately.

• Teachers need to design instructional activities that can nurture the

stude ts’

self-efficacy, like through appropriate task selection and

feedback.

(16)

References (1)

Anam, S., & Stracke, E. (2016). Language learning strategies of Indonesian primary school students: In relation to self-efficacy beliefs. System, 60, 1-10. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A socio cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (2001). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in cognitive task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353-363.

Clement, R., D̈rnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448.

Diseth, ̊. (2011). Self-efficacy, goal orientations and learning strategies as mediators between preceding and subsequent academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 191-195.

Graham, S. (2007). Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection. Language Learning Journal, 35(1), 81–93.

Heidari, F., Izadi, M., & Ahmadian, M. V. (2012 . The relatio ship et ee Ira ia EFL lear ers’ self-efficacy beliefs and use of vocabulary learning strategies. English Language Learning, 5(2), 174-182.

Hsieh, P. P.-H., & Kang, H.-S. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning, 60(3), 606–627. Hsieh, P. P.-H., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for a u dersta di g of u dergraduates’ oti atio i a foreign language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 513–532.

Kim, D.-H., Wang, C., Ahn, H. S., & Bong, M. (2015). English language learners' self- efficacy profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 38(0), 136-142.

Lamb, M. (2002). Explaining successful language learning in difficult circumstances. Prospect, 17(2), 35-52.

Lamb, M. (2007). The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study. Tesol Quarterly, 41(4), 757-780.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 119-137.

Magogwe, J. M., & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System, 35(3), 338-352.

(17)

References (2)

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Mizumoto, A. (2012). Exploring the effects of self-efficacy on vocabulary learning strategies. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 423-437.

Mizumoto, A. (2013). Effects of self-regulated vocabulary learning process on self-efficacy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 253-265. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 116-125.

Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 283-305.

Shang, H. F. (2010). Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 12(2), 18-42.

Su, M.-h., & Duo, P. . EFL lear ers’ la guage lear i g strategy use a d per ei ed self- efficacy. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(3), 335-345. Wang, C.-H., “ha o , D. M., & Ross, M. E. . “tude ts’ hara teristi s, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302-323.

Wilson, K., & Narayan, A. (2014). Relationships among individual task self-efficacy, self- regulated learning strategy use and academic performance in a computersupported collaborative learning environment. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology. Wong, M. S.-L. (2005). Language learning strategies and language self-efficacy: investigating the relationship in Malaysia. RELC, 36(3), 245-269. Woodrow, L. (2005). The challenge of measuring language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 90-98.

Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39(4), 510-522. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.10.017 Yang, N.-D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.

(1)

Motivational engagement (cont.)

2. Persistence in the face of difficult tasks

e.g.

1. Less efficacious learners tended to easily give up, leave questions

unanswered, or answer questions recklessly.

2. Most of less efficacious learners preferred easy tasks, while

efficacious learners preferred difficult and challenging ones.

3. Interest in L2 learning

Unlike their counterparts, most low group students seemed to fall short

of interest in learning English.

(2)

• Differences in motivational behaviours are likely to be affected by

self-efficacy and in turn affect achievement (Bandura, 1977;

Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).

• This e ide e supports Ba dura’s 99 lai that people ho

perceive themselves capable of doing tasks will be more engrossed

and interested in their activities.

(3)

Motivational engagements (cont.)

4. Attributions of success and failure

Effort was the attributional factor of achievements for high and low

self-efficacy learners.

This finding in part does not support past research that students with high

self-efficacy tend to ascribe their achievement to internal or controllable

factors, such as effort and ability, while their low self-efficacy counterparts to

external and uncontrollable factors, such as task difficulty or environmental

support (Graham, 2006; Hsieh & Kang, 2010).

Effort

attri utio s e dorsed y the stude ts are healthy attri utio s Hsieh

& Schallert, 2008, p. 528).

(4)

Pedagogical implications

• Teacher educators might need to equip the teachers with the

know-ho of raisi g a d sustai i g their stude ts’ self

-efficacy.

• Teachers could train their students in evaluating their ability to cope

with specific tasks accurately.

• Teachers need to design instructional activities that can nurture the

stude ts’

self-efficacy, like through appropriate task selection and

feedback.

(5)

References (1)

Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (2001). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in cognitive task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353-363.

Clement, R., D̈rnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417-448.

Diseth, ̊. (2011). Self-efficacy, goal orientations and learning strategies as mediators between preceding and subsequent academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 191-195.

Graham, S. (2007). Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection. Language Learning Journal, 35(1), 81–93.

Lamb, M. (2002). Explaining successful language learning in difficult circumstances. Prospect, 17(2), 35-52.

Lamb, M. (2007). The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study. Tesol Quarterly, 41(4), 757-780.

(6)

References (2)

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Mizumoto, A. (2012). Exploring the effects of self-efficacy on vocabulary learning strategies. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 423-437.

Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 283-305.

Shang, H. F. (2010). Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 12(2), 18-42.